If you are a gun owner in California, get out.
David Codrea pointed out something very interesting in California’s SB 1327. This is the new law allowing private parties to sue gun dealers and manufacturers.
This bill would create a private right of action for any person against any person who, within this state, (1) manufactures or causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into the state, or causes to be distributed or transported or imported into the state, keeps for sale or offers or exposes for sale, or gives or lends any firearm lacking a serial number required by law, assault weapon, or .50 BMG rifle; (2) purchases, sells, offers to sell, or transfers ownership of any firearm precursor part that is not a federally regulated firearm precursor part; or (3) is a licensed firearms dealer and sells, supplies, delivers, or gives possession or control of a firearm to any person under 21 years of age, all subject to certain exceptions, as specified. The bill would make these provisions inoperative upon invalidation of a specified law in Texas, and would repeal its provisions on January 1 of the following year.
I’m sure you knew about that, but bad as it looks, it’s far worse. We begin with this.
1021.11. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent this state, a political subdivision, a governmental entity or public official in this state, or a person in this state from enforcing any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other type of law that regulates or restricts firearms, or that represents any litigant seeking that relief, is jointly and severally liable to pay the attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party.
That looks fairly standard: Loser pays winner’s legal expenses. But there’s a catch. If you challenge any state or local gun control law…
(e) Any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief as described in subdivision (a), shall not be deemed a prevailing party under this section or any other provision of this chapter.
One more time: Any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief from [any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other type of law that regulates or restricts firearms] shall not be deemed a prevailing party under this section or any other provision of this chapter.
They’ve preemptively declared themselves the winners. By law. In any challenge to any victim-disarmament law.
I’d be interested in hearing what more attorneys think. I’m fairly sure this violate the heck out of the First, Second, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments.
Added: I realized that I was assuming readers would understand some details. That may not always be the case, so I’ll break it down for those who don’t make a hobby of law.
Under this sickening provision, you could still challenge a victim-disarmament law. But, and it’s a big but, you cannot ask the judge for “declaratory or injunctive relief.”
“Declaratory or injunctive relief” means you’re asking the judge to declare that the law is clearly wrong (declaratory), or that it’s likely the law is wrong and temporarily halts enforcement while the trial is underway (injunctive). If you are challenging a magazine ban, for instance, you would want “declaratory or injunctive relief” because you don’t want to have to destroys your magazines while you wait to see if you win your suit (prevail). Of course you want relief.
But now, if you ask for it, you automatically lose, and you’re automatically on the hook for the government’s legal expenses. If you want to win, you cannot ask for a hold on enforcement. You’ll have to get rid of your magazines or face arrest, and buy replacements after you win your case.
Maybe mags are no big deal to you. But what if you were challenging a law that affected something more expensive? Maybe California banned your entire collection of three thousand dollar rifles? Give ’em up, if you want even a chance of “prevailing.”
That’s a hell of an up-front “legal expense,” or as Mark Smith outs it, a “poll tax.”
Click here to donate via PayPal. (More Tip Jar Options) |
So would not the opposite also work? Such as if you sold all of your magazines to your cousin in Nevada, that are illegal in CA, and then continued with your suit in CA, and won, could you sue CA for the lost magazines that you were forced by this statute to rid yourself of? And expect them to pay to restore you, and make you whole once again, due to the way that they have written the law?
Because if that is not the case, then I, as not a lawyer, simply cannot see how this kind of wording in legalese stand as far as being fair to any plaintiffs, in any kind of case. And it would appear to be likely that any court should immediately throw it out, simply on merit alone.
But then, I forget that when you deal with CA, it is like dealing with South Africa, and the same rules do not apply there.
My oldest son lived there for a few years, in San Luis Obispo. When he got there, he was pretty liberal. But after just around 4 years, he married a Cali girl, and got so disgusted with the liberalism, and the lack or real freedom that they left, and moved back to Michigan, not the greatest bastion of freedom, but a damn sight better than a lot of places.
I have to agree with your assessment. If you are in California, move, and the sooner the better. I even read somewhere that they wanted to attempt to charge an income tax on those who moved away, for up to 10 years after they were gone. I even had to laugh at that. No doubt the companies leaving would have a field day with that one.
Of course it isn’t fair. That’s the immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional point.
The legal procedure makes me think of the witch trials. If you say you’re innocent we’re going to tie your hands and feet together, then tie you to a rock and pitch you in a pond. If you float you’re a witch and Calif, er the townspeople kill you. If you drown you’re innocent and presumably they apologize. They cause harm with no consequences.